The government’s electoral overhaul introduces new restrictions critics say will disproportionately affect young, Māori and lower-income voters, writes Catherine McGregor in today’s extract from The Bulletin.
To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.
Enrolment deadline brought forward
The government has unveiled wide-ranging changes to New Zealand’s voting laws, including scrapping same-day enrolment and tightening rules on campaigning and donations. Under the proposals, from the next election, voters must be enrolled by midnight on the Sunday before advance voting begins – 13 days out from election day. Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said the current system, brought in by Labour in 2020 with NZ First’s backing, places “too much strain” on the Electoral Commission and delays final results. “We used to be able to get an outcome of the election in two weeks,” Goldsmith said. “It went out to three weeks … If we do nothing, it’ll be longer than that.” Goldsmith insisted the changes are “significant, but necessary”.
But critics have called foul, reports Thomas Manch in The Post (paywalled). Green Party electoral reform spokesperson Celia Wade-Brown described it as a “dark day for our democracy”, and Labour’s justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said the move was “despicable”. Critics have raised concerns that the changes will disproportionately affect Māori and Pasifika, young people, and those in unstable housing, with Webb noting that people with “busy lives” are exactly the kind the system should be helping to vote.
Seymour’s ‘dropkicks’ jab draws backlash
Government messaging on the changes took a sharp turn when deputy prime minister David Seymour dismissed affected voters as “dropkicks”. “Frankly, I’m a bit sick of dropkicks that can’t get themselves organised to follow the law … then going along and voting to tax away hard-working people’s money,” Seymour told reporters. Webb responded in Parliament, calling the remarks “outrageous” and showing “disrespect” to over 100,000 New Zealanders who enrolled on election day in 2023, reports Glenn McConnell in Stuff.
While Seymour focused on people failing to enrol in time, the law would also partly disenfranchise voters who had recently moved – such as students or renters – by disallowing changes of address during the advance voting period, notes Laura Walters in Newsroom. In 2023, 134,000 voters updated their enrolment details during this window, and under the new rules, their party vote might count, but their electorate vote would not.
Does comparing ourselves with Australia make sense?
Goldsmith defended the proposed 13-day cut-off by pointing to Australia, where voters must enrol 26 days before election day. “I have every confidence New Zealand can manage within the 13-day deadline,” he said. Speaking to Checkpoint’s Melissa Chan-Green, constitutional law expert Andrew Geddis called the comparison flawed, noting that voting is compulsory in Australia. “They put a lot of sticks in the system,” he said. “If you’re not enrolled and don’t vote, they chase you and fine you.” Geddis said it was misleading to suggest New Zealand could replicate the same compliance without a similar level of enforcement.
He also questioned whether speeding up final election results was worth disenfranchising tens of thousands of voters, pointing out that special votes – which would be dramatically reduced under the new law – historically favour left-leaning parties. After the 2023 election, special votes shifted two seats away from National and toward Te Pāti Māori and the Greens. Geddis conceded that counting special votes was taking longer than in the past, but noted the Electoral Commission had issued a set of recommendations on how it could be sped up. “That recommendation did not include what the government’s doing,” he said. “The government is doing something off its own bat, where the people who run the elections did not think it was necessary.”
‘Manurewa Marae rule’ prompts ban on kai near polling places
Another headline reform is a new $10,000 offence targeting “treating” near polling places – defined as offering free food, drink or entertainment within 100 metres while voting is taking place. The move appears inspired by the controversy at Manurewa Marae, which served as a polling place for the 2023 election and offered hāngī and other refreshments during the voting period. The Electoral Commission investigated a number of complaints of treating at the marae but concluded there was no breach, citing a lack of “corrupt intent” and describing the provision of kai as manaakitanga.
Geddis said the law change amounts to legislative overreach: “A hammer has been taken out to smash the walnut.” While the government says the rule will bring clarity, it also risks deterring community engagement and complicating efforts to boost turnout in marginalised areas. As with many of the bill’s provisions, the new rule’s perceived alignment with government interests will likely come under intense scrutiny in coming weeks.
